Show me this theory you have that explains "intelligent cause" and so forth, which must exist for your statement to be true.

You first need to explain what the heck the "theory" of "intelligent cause" is supposed to explain. Until you've done that, demanding that other people account for something that you seem to have just made up, just doesn't work.

So far it seems to be only adding unnecessary wordage to what current theory already says.

1) What exactly is this alleged theory? i.e., what does "intelligent cause" even mean?

2) What pattern(s) of consistently observed evidence is it supposed to explain?

3) How do those patterns follow logically from the clearly stated premise in step 1?

4) How does any of this differ from the predictions of current theory?

(Or is asking for a clearly stated premise too much to ask?)

Oh, and for step 1, do NOT say that something is "best explained" by something else (that would be like making a promise to give the actual explanation later); state the actual explanation that you are proposing.

Quote

Discovery of one anomaly would not force Darwinian theory to be immediately thrown out of science, therefore you did not "falsify" it.

Did you actually read what OgreMkv posted above? Single verified anomolies wouldn't overturn something supported by millions of pieces of evidence. What they would do is imply limits on its applicability. Falsification of a firmly established theory would require a huge amount of conflicting evidence at a basic level. Take Newton's laws as an example; later discoveries put limits on their applicability, yet people keep using them within those limits. My guess is that something analogous to a verified pre-Cambrian rabbit would do something similar.